5 ms·

Evolution intends in the sense that it follows an abstract fitness function. I didn't think I'd have to explain that here. I know how to implement evolution alg

Evolution intends in the sense that it follows an abstract fitness function. I didn't think I'd have to explain that here. I know how to implement evolution algorithmically. And no matter what you think about tribal societies, we still live in tribes every day. You and your close friends are a tribe. Your family is a tribe. Forums and now social media communities are tribes. HackerNews is a tribe. Open source projects are tribes, indeed they fork over ideological differences all the time. Political parties are tribes, indeed they split and antagonize each other all the time. Nationalities are tribes. Companies are tribes. Social classes are tribes. Subcultures and "identities" are tribes. We are not built to handle global contexts, so we collapse them into tribal ones. We do that for everything. There's always an in-group and an out-group and a hierarchy if we're talking about a cluster of people.

rglullis 2y ago
A tribe assumes a strict hierarchy and mobility only though power and violence. I can agree with you about the issue of societies failing to organize themselves past a certain scale, but this is not a problem with "Capitalism".
- Vampiero 2y ago
  Fair, I used a very loose definition then. My issue with capitalism is fundamentally split in three parts: that profit is the driving force behind action; that short term effects are prioritized over long term ones; and that global markets operate at a scale that does not allow individuals to have any real agency in their environment due to the points outlined in the previous comment. It just fosters the kind of behavior that goes against my idealized version of what society should be according to my understanding of the conditions in which we thrive. i.e. it turns people into selfish venal assholes and it destroys our chances at a better future with each passing day Perhaps I'm also using a wrong definition of anarchy then. But it's honestly the closest label I know for this concept. A less centralized society.
  - capr 2y ago
    But profit _is_ the driving force of human action. Doing anything voluntarily is by definition profitable, otherwise you wouldn't do it.
    - KingMob 2y ago
      This smears out the definition of profit beyond usefulness. I can pretty much guarantee hunter-gatherers hunt to not starve, children play for sheer joy, and nobody's thinking of profit. There are better psychological/anthropological terms to apply to human drives than calling them "profitable". That's weird economist thinking, trying to bring everything under their purview.
      - spokaneplumb 2y ago
        Worse, it’s an attempt to get us to agree that humans only do things for profit, in order to advance an ideology and make our thought more malleable when an author turns around and starts writing about public policy and ethics applied to things that actually are about profit. At least that’s what is going on when the schools of “thought” this kind of stuff comes from attempt it. This particular poster might not be. But usually it’s a cheap rhetorical trick, coming from folks who present themselves as simply following logic. Gross.
  - rglullis 2y ago
    "My issue with capitalism is fundamentally split in three parts", then you go on to describe things that are not exclusive to Capitalism AT ALL. Again, please quit the cheap sophistry. > the kind of behavior that goes against my idealized version of what society should be Are you listening to yourself? You sound like a college sophomore who is sure has a solution to all of humanity's problems... > turns people into selfish venal assholes ... and can only assign blame on others. I can bet you nourish some well-developed fantasies about what you would do if you were given enough power over any "less centralized society", and they are a lot more about imposing your view over everyone than ensuring your small community can prosper and be happy.

rglullis 2y ago

A tribe assumes a strict hierarchy and mobility only though power and violence. I can agree with you about the issue of societies failing to organize themselves past a certain scale, but this is not a problem with "Capitalism".

Vampiero 2y ago
Fair, I used a very loose definition then. My issue with capitalism is fundamentally split in three parts: that profit is the driving force behind action; that short term effects are prioritized over long term ones; and that global markets operate at a scale that does not allow individuals to have any real agency in their environment due to the points outlined in the previous comment. It just fosters the kind of behavior that goes against my idealized version of what society should be according to my understanding of the conditions in which we thrive. i.e. it turns people into selfish venal assholes and it destroys our chances at a better future with each passing day Perhaps I'm also using a wrong definition of anarchy then. But it's honestly the closest label I know for this concept. A less centralized society.
- capr 2y ago
  But profit _is_ the driving force of human action. Doing anything voluntarily is by definition profitable, otherwise you wouldn't do it.
  - KingMob 2y ago
    This smears out the definition of profit beyond usefulness. I can pretty much guarantee hunter-gatherers hunt to not starve, children play for sheer joy, and nobody's thinking of profit. There are better psychological/anthropological terms to apply to human drives than calling them "profitable". That's weird economist thinking, trying to bring everything under their purview.
    - spokaneplumb 2y ago
      Worse, it’s an attempt to get us to agree that humans only do things for profit, in order to advance an ideology and make our thought more malleable when an author turns around and starts writing about public policy and ethics applied to things that actually are about profit. At least that’s what is going on when the schools of “thought” this kind of stuff comes from attempt it. This particular poster might not be. But usually it’s a cheap rhetorical trick, coming from folks who present themselves as simply following logic. Gross.
- rglullis 2y ago
  "My issue with capitalism is fundamentally split in three parts", then you go on to describe things that are not exclusive to Capitalism AT ALL. Again, please quit the cheap sophistry. > the kind of behavior that goes against my idealized version of what society should be Are you listening to yourself? You sound like a college sophomore who is sure has a solution to all of humanity's problems... > turns people into selfish venal assholes ... and can only assign blame on others. I can bet you nourish some well-developed fantasies about what you would do if you were given enough power over any "less centralized society", and they are a lot more about imposing your view over everyone than ensuring your small community can prosper and be happy.